I, Michael Sutcliffe, Chartered Town Planner, of Ivy House, Waterfall Lane, Waterfall, Waterhouses, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

My wife and I have lived at Ivy House for 22 years. I wish to make the following declaration in relation to Pitchings Farm, Waterhouses in addition to our letter dated 30th October 2012.

We have noted on the web page that you have received further representation from the applicant, a solicitor, the Parish Council and residents.

You will note that several of them seek to discredit our earlier submission, particularly our observations about traffic movements through Waterfall and along Whitefields Lane and therefore we wish to respond.

We will do this in four sections.

1. Ivy House fronts onto Waterfall Lane, all the principal windows are on this frontage and provide clear views of traffic passing at a distance of approximately 50 feet.

I (Michael Sutcliffe) also work at home and I have a clear view from my desk of passing vehicles. From the first floor, where we have a lounge, and from the upper part of the garden we have clear views across the fields towards Whitefields Lane.

This contrasts with our neighbour and friend George Ratcliffe’s cottage, which is smaller and sits at a lower elevation to the road and considerably further from it than our property and without the long views.

Our observations are not just sedentary from one viewpoint, we walk and drive around the village and our walks include Whitefields Lane. It is also important to understand the scale of the heavy goods vehicles that are involved. Many of these are high sided vehicles pulling trailers of equal size.

They are often brightly coloured, and being motorway scale vehicles, are very visible and overreach the hedgerows. The suggestion that they may be turning off before Whitefields Lane is nonsense. We can clearly see them passing the last turn to the church and then a driver is faced with three options. Rocester Lane, which is signed ‘Unsuitable for Heavy Vehicles’ and a left turn, a cul-de-sac to Sparrow Lea Farm. Pitchings Farm is clearly signed ahead.

We also know that these vehicles are going to Pitchings Farm, because we meet them when walking along Whitefields Lane and on at least three occasions drivers have seen us in the garden and stopped to ask for directions.

The other diagnostic factors are the repetitive nature of the journeys, their timing and the nature of the loads and the company names on the cabs.

Vehicles are not passing through to other destinations but go in and out at intervals sufficient to drop off materials or pick up products.

Many of the vehicles are uncovered and the loads are identifiable with the business use of Pitchings Farm, steel, concrete timber, galvanised metal products and aggregates.

It is inconceivable that these quantities and the frequency of the vehicle movements could be generated by other properties in the village.

In addition to the company’s own HGV, some of the most frequent vehicles are Tarmac LaFarge, Mycocks Concrete Products and ADL Metal Services. We have also noted vehicles from Scotland and Potto, close to Middlesbrough and Stockton, well known for their metal industries. On one occasion we noted an Eddie Stobart livery.

We therefore reject entirely the various submissions that try to suggest we cannot observe the traffic generated by Pitchings Farm, or that their destinations are elsewhere.

We remain firmly of the view that there has been a considerable increase in traffic, and therefore production, between 2002 and 20012, which continues.

There is, of course, one definitive way the applicants can resolve this matter of traffic generation and intensification and I invite them to produce delivery notes or order books, rather than indulge in Yah boo correspondence.

It is very noteworthy that none of the recent submissions, particularly, from the applicant or his agent have replied to your request at point 4 of your email 3rd June 2013 i.e. details of days and hours of working, number of types of vehicles on site and the level of vehicle movements to and from the site. We believe this information is essential if you are to properly assess this application. If it is not submitted then the evidence is imprecise and ambiguous and the conclusion is obvious.

2. The Clerk to the Parish Council has also replied to you and we wish to comment on that.

We believe the response is a considerable understatement and has a too narrow focus. As we said in our original submission, no significant areas of land have gone out of agriculture rather farm amalgamation has taken place. Other land is farmed more intensively e.g. Breech House, which coincidentally recently built an additional stock building provided by Ian Harvey Ltd. A reduction in traffic cannot be demonstrated.

The issue of industrial traffic is not just one for Waterfall, but includes Waterhouses, where traffic conditions and road capacity have changed dramatically in the last 22 years.

It is significant however that the Parish Council acknowledge an increase in traffic along Whitefields Lane and this is confirmed in the press cutting annexed to this Statutory Declaration as exhibit MS1. They are silent on the question of vehicle size and there is a gap in the logic of this response. If there is an increase on Whitefields Lane, this increase is necessarily transmitted to the lanes feeding it, all the way to the A523.

A significant observation is made in the email from the Parish Clerk to Mrs W Harvey Ref IWH2 concerning Whitefields Lane, where he says ‘many are in equal poor state’.

We see this as an acknowledgement of the unsatisfactory condition of the lane, and the minutes of the 4th June 2013 record Whitefields Lane being repaired but others not.

The reply by the Council also leads us to query why, if they did observe the increase in traffic and must therefore have observed the size and type of vehicle and the goods being carried, they didn’t alert the National Park Authority to a possible breach of Planning Regulations and an unauthorised use?

3. This third section considers a variety of issues from the recent submission. Considering Mr Bolt’s submission I say this is not credible. He states that ‘shortly after we moved in we were aware that Ian Harvey commenced his business’, this would be in 1994 and Ian’s statement refers to commencing at Pitchings in 1996. The statement that they ‘have not noticed any material change in traffic movements along Whitefields Lane is contradicted by the Parish Council.

Referring to the statement of George, our next door neighbour; clearly comparisons of traffic flow from 70 years ago for agricultural purposes with industrial traffic levels between 2002 and 2012 does not address the issue to be considered.

We will have to agree to disagree on numbers of HGV movements, I think 4 or 5 is likely but even if it were an average of 2, that is 4 trips plus light vans and cars.

I do recall two Mycock concrete deliveries going in convoy in the middle of the Saturday afternoon before the May Bank Holiday this year and on the morning of 30th July, as I was writing this report. four HGV vehicles carrying steel and galvanised metal passed between 8.20 am and 12.25pm.

The difference in estimates between myself and others, again emphasises the need for the applicant to provide verifiable evidence of traffic movements.

Finally we wish to raise a number of points arising from Ian Harvey’s latest statement.

At Para 4.2 the additional building is described as covering an existing outside work area. We believe this is operational development, requiring planning permission and the statement is directly contradicting the agent’s statement on Page 13 para 3 that:

‘Since 2008 a workshop has been erected which will provide additional storage and workshop space’.

The building cannot claim 10 years immunity and is evidence of expansion and intensification.

The additional land referred to may not be within the application area, but expansion onto it is still a valid indication of a growing business. The term ‘nature of the current work’ lacks transparency.

The remainder of Para 5 seems to be an attempt to reinterpret earlier statements by the agent, which demonstrated growth as only ‘fluctuations’.

This has the appearance of an attempt to reposition the case and side line the agents revealing statement now that they know that intensification and a material change of use makes them vulnerable.

We judge that the increase in traffic and the larger amount of raw materials, particularly steel and concrete and products carried, the new building and extension of the site indicate using the balance of probability test a growth in the level of work.

We do not accept that their evidence of traffic movements and level of work is sufficiently precise and unambiguous. Both could readily be verified by the submission of accounts and other documents. The references to workforce are also difficult to understand. Have there been eight full time workers since 2002 or have former contract workers now become full time? It should also be acknowledged that increased productivity can be achieved by improved equipment and production methods, not just by increasing the workforce.

At Para 7, reference is made to my original submission of 30 October 2012. The comment at Para 7.1 is a misunderstanding. I am quoting the agent’s own submission at Para 2, page 13 which states ‘The building and yard area utilised for the business have remained constant since 1998’ This is then contradicted by the third paragraph which is referred to above and states a second workshop has been erected.

With reference to the list of suppliers and customers it may well be intended to indicate the type of work carried out but really it only lists the type of customers served.

We stand by our reasonable belief that this long list of customers was unlikely to be established in 1996 when the business relocated to Pitchings Farm.

Again, this is easily verifiable by reference to the applicant’s records.

In our second bullet point, referred to in Para 7.2 we can confirm we are referring to Pitchings Farm in respect of industrial traffic, but placing them in a wider context.

We have already dealt with our observation of traffic flow on Whitefields Lane and reiterate that we believe the number, character, frequency and scale of industrial heavy goods traffic along the lane has increased substantially between 2002 and 2012. This is also acknowledged by the Parish Council in a more subdued way.

With regard to the condition of the roads, the reply from the Parish Clerk does confirm the concern of the council for generally poor state of the roads and does confirm that Whitefields Lane was included in that and was not singled out as not needing attention.

Our personal observations are that Whitefields Lane was in considerably worse condition over larger stretches than the other highways and had it not been repaired by a private contractor during the weekend before your last site visit, this would have been very evident to you.

To repeat, these repairs are acknowledged in the Parish Council minutes of June 4th.

4, Conclusions

We have read carefully the submission from the applicant’s solicitors which has helpfully set out the legal context for determining the application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. We note the balance of probability test for evidence and that the burden of proof is on the applicant.

We are clear that our evidence does contradict the applicant’s version of events and have pointed out where the applicant’s evidence is insufficiently precise and ambiguous, particularly in relation to industrial traffic generation, level of work and growth of the business.

We refute the suggestion that we are not in a position to observe the impact of this unauthorised business or that we have confused it with other traffic generating activities.

We have carefully applied the guidance in Blum V Secretary of State for the Environment 1987 relating to intensification and changes giving rise to a material change of use.

We conclude that not only has the level of work increased, there has also been expansion of the land area used, the construction of a new building in 2008 and in 2002 the creation by replacement of a storage building. The level of traffic generated has notably increased, together with the size of the vehicles used and the loads carried. The Parish Council also confirm the traffic growth.

All taken together we believe that between 2002 and 2012 the use changed such that it is now of a materially different character and nature and the application should be refused because a change of use has occurred.

We can confirm that we shall be willing to present this evidence under oath at any subsequent inquiry.

I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.

Declared at ........................................

In the County of Staffordshire

this ........ day at ................. 2013

Timothy Bealby Solicitor

Bowcock & Pursall LLP 54 St Edward Street Leek Staffordshire, ST13 5DJ (DX 16352 Leek) Community leaders back business plans

By Laila Jackson laila.jackson@thepeakdistrict.co.uk

AN application for a Lawful Development Certificate has been made for a business in Waterfall.

Ian Harvey Fabrications has applied for the certificate for the premises based at Pitchings Farm, in Whitefield Lane.

At last week's meeting of Waterhouses Parish Council the authority received correspondence from the Peak District National Park Authority asking them to comment if there had been any noticeable increase traffic generated along Whitefield Lane and through Waterfall within the last 10 years.

The email from the Peak Park senior legal officer Jo Birkin said: "The authority is in process of determining a long-standing application for a Certificate of Lawful Use in relation to Pitchings Farm. The application relates to the business use of the site as a fabrication business."

"I have received representation from members of the public which refers to published minutes of the parish council to concern about damage to verges and road surfaces from large vehicles and there was also concern for pedestrian safety."

"These conditions have been made in relation to the condition of Whitefield Lane and concern over an alleged increase in traffic along the lane, and whether the lane is adequate for the volume and size of vehicles now using it."

Councillor Andrew Carr said: "Traffic in Waterfall is no more than it has been for the last few years. The amount of HGV is no greater, but the volume of traffic is more on Whitefield Lane."

The clerk informed councillors that he had received no representations from people regarding traffic problems in the village.

Councillor David Stone said: "The state of roads in Waterfall is poor which has been reported to the parish council. Also we have had complaints about the village green."

Councillor Eddie Simpson said that small lanes leading to Alton Towers had to deal with thousands of cars nearly every day, while councillor Mavis Simpson said she had not noticed any difference with at all. Councillors agreed to inform the Peak Park that there had been no significant increase in traffic over the last few years in Waterfall as many farm had gone out of business.

Also they stated that they had received any complaints about traffic problems, but that there had been an increase on Whitefield Lane, but this was not detrimental.

The Lawful Development Certificate submitted in relation to Pitchings Farm has been based on the fact that there has been a continued use of the site for the purpose of a fabrication business for a period of 10 years or more before the application was submitted.

GIVE US YOUR OPINIONS TO ANY OF OUR STORIES ONLINE

www.leak-news.co.uk